Mohd Azam v. The State Of Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8686 of 2026 DATE: 22.06.2026 Between:

Mohd. Azam .... Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

.... Respondent/Complainant :O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail, who are arrayed as accused in Crime No.374 of 2026 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

2.

The brief facts of the case are that on 25.04.2026, de-facto complainant lodged a report before the Police stating that she migrated to Hyderabad in 2011 and got married in 2020. They have

two children. In 2023, her husband's cousin, Mohammed Azam, came into contact with her and began proposing marriage to her. Despite her refusal, he allegedly threatened and blackmailed her, forcing her to enter into a physical relationship on the false promise of marriage. They allegedly met multiple times at his residence and occasionally at her residence. Subsequently, her husband came to know about the relationship and compelled her to divorce him. On 23.04.2026, she separated from her husband. Thereafter, when she requested Mohammed Azam to marry her, he refused. Therefore, requested the police to take necessary action. Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case for the abovementioned offences.

3.

Heard Sri Mohd. Lateef Ansari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent -State. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the said allegations and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that at the time the alleged relationship commenced, the victim was a married woman and, therefore, the question of a promise of marriage does not arise so as to attract the provisions of Section 69 of the BNS. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since

29.04.2026 and that the substantial part of the investigation has already been completed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition. 5.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature and that the investigation is still in progress. Therefore, granting bail to the petitioner, at this stage, does not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6.

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.04.2026. As per the remand case diary, the prosecution witnesses, namely LWs.1 to 14, including the Investigating Officers, have already been examined. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the stage of investigation, and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused, subject to the following conditions:

i.

The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad District.

ii.

The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.

iii.

The petitioner-accused shall not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or induce the de-facto complainant or any of the prosecution witnesses.

iv.

The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.

(presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).

7.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 22.06.2026 SS

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8686 of 2026 Date: 22.06.2026 SS